Examining the promotion of mental health and wellbeing in Australian sports clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organised sport is increasingly recognised as a culturally acceptable site for mental health and wellbeing promotion. To date, however, there is limited knowledge pertaining to how exactly mental health and wellbeing is supported in such contexts. The present study aimed to provide insight into mental health and wellbeing promotion practices in Australian sports clubs. An online cross-sectional survey examined the current provision of mental health and wellbeing initiatives in sports clubs, barriers and motives to such promotional efforts, and perceptions of psychological safety within club environments. The survey was completed by 302 stakeholders of Australian sports clubs (Mage = 41.3 ± 15.7 years, 46.7% male). Fewer than half of stakeholders (47.7%) reported that their sports club had implemented initiatives to support mental health and wellbeing. Insufficient resources (e.g. knowledge, finances) were identified as the most prominent barrier to such promotional efforts. Sports clubs reported using various initiatives to promote mental health and wellbeing, although evidence-based resources (e.g. Ahead of the Game) were rarely implemented. Stakeholders in sports clubs that had implemented initiatives to support mental health and wellbeing perceived their club as a more mentally healthy environment and attained higher mental health literacy scores. Ongoing efforts to increase the utilisation of sports settings to support mental health and wellbeing are necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".